- From: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 11:49:16 -0700
- To: <www-style@w3.org>, "Todd Fahrner" <fahrner@pobox.com>
- Cc: <howcome@w3.org>
Todd Fahrner wrote: > As long as we're still in the realm of interpretation, and in the > absence of any implementations setting precedent, does it not make > sense to promote the most useful interpretation rather than propose > outright amendments to the recommendation ('cept for fixing up some > obviously erroneous ascii-art)? - I mean, alignment is just style, > not content, right? ;^) Right! Hello, Authoritative? Commentary needed! > Let me get this straight: in your interpretation of the spec, in the > case of a list item with every available white-space property set to > 0 (with no inherited margin), and the list-style set to "outside", > there should still be a phantom left-margin on the list-item block, > and the marker would touch the canvas edge? In the case of ordered > lists, as the marker width changed for extra characters, the phantom > margin would change as well? How much phantom-margin is sufficient to > deal with arbitrarily wide markers; e.g., in the case of an ordered > list that went from I-XVIII? Isn't this the way things are now? MSIE and NSN each have their own method of determining the indent of content when the list position is "outside" -- authors currently have no control via CSS. As implemented in MSIE 3.02, margin-left on LI affects the list-marker, and content moves relatively. When the marker/number is wider than the indent of the content, the first line of the content is indented more. An impediment to your solution is the 'list-position' property itself. If the indent of content is determined by LI margin-left, what would it mean to give LI a margin-left of 0 and a list-position of "outside"? IMO, the simplest way to give author control of list content indent is to add units to list-position values. "Outside" means "browser, do your thing!", "inside" means 0, and units mean "block-indent the content by this much." A more general solution is to add block-indent and :before to the spec, and say that list-position is just another way of specifying block-indent and that list-style-type is a way to specify content of an implicit :before pseudo-element. > Has there been any discussion or detailed specification on how lists > (or normal block-level elements) should be rendered when their > display type is set to "inline"? More authoritative commentary needed. David Perrell
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 1997 14:58:17 UTC